Nerf Obuch pierce armor to 1

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

These guys have no business being such tanks, they come with 80 HP and 2/2 base armor for 55f 20g. I get that it’s a Castle unit but it’s also an infantry unit, Crossbows should have an easy time countering it, while right now if the Poles gets +2 armor on them, he can basically flood only Obuch, they trade nearly evenly vs Knights (while costing 1/2 the resources), they destroy anything you can make from the Barracks. They have no business tanking 4 damage from Castle Age Crossbows, let them take 4 damage per shot then they die to 20 shots as opposed to the current 27.

Poles already have a lot going for them, tower rush on Arabia, mining Gold from Stone (which you can see as +50% effective gather rate, imagine Turks but with +50% and not +20% bonus). They also have a very nice tech tree, including Arbalest with Thumb Ring, a very good Hussar and a BIG Castle Age power spike with the all-in Knights which can also be played as early Imp all-in Cavalier.

Oh yes obviously their Folwark economy makes them top tier eco-wise too, you get 10% food immediately by placing farms next to a Folwark, if you research Heavy Plow, that’s 37.5 food per farm, if you count the average number of Farms you drop, you can easily get something in the realm of 400-1000 “free” food during early-to-mid Castle Age.

Obuch right now basically works like Janissary or Conquistador, a unit that is good without upgrades, unlike Poles though, Spanish and Turks have very awkward tech trees which Poles do not (they even get Bombard Cannon for some reason!) so nerf Obuch please.

2/1 armor will still leave them as tanks in melee, beating anything in melee, even Knights/Paladins if you mix in a few Pikemen and/or cheap Cavalier, but they will have 1 unit type they are weak against and won’t be a “1 size fits all” unit. To my knowledge, no melee infantry in this game has 2 base pierce armor because infantry is generally designed to be weak vs ranged units, unless it’s a “fill a civ tech tree gap” type of infantry unit like Huskarl or Eagle Warrior.

Take any infantry UU that resembles Champion in its utilization, such as Woad Raider, Throwing Axeman, Shotel Warrior, Kamayuk, etc. they all have 1 pierce armor even in elite form.

11 Likes
2

I would argue that the Obuch kinda needs to be a strong military option given the lack of true power units for Poles (the closest being cheap Cavaliers) and Halberdiers, because otherwise they would have no effective options in late game with gold access and vs cavalry civs. The 2 pierce armor it’s important because otherwise you can just use archers to deny most of the armor breaking mechanic as you can simply keep your melee units away while archers kill all Obuchs, rendering the mechanic ineffective in many situations, and keep in mind that Polish cavalry and Skirmishers lack pierce armor, so they aren’t as reliable as Archer counters compared to other civs. They aren’t really a problem in open maps from what I’ve seen, as Castle drops are not as decisive and Cavalry sees a more dominant role, it’s in closed maps where Poles become oppressive. Imo, the Obuch is not the most important reason on why Poles are so dominant on Arena, but rather the combination of 10% faster farming plus 50% gold trickle from stone mines (both bonuses that directly benefit UU play on Arena), along with access to bombard cannons to deter ranged units and siege. If you ask me, I would nerf their gold trickle bonus, from 50% to 25% to reduce the encouragement to castle drop and defensive play; removing bombard cannons also makes sense from a balance perspective, to discourage Poles to camp Obuchs and cannons next to a castle for a slow push, while encouraging more use of cavalry to snipe siege. Maybe nerfing the Obuch it’s an ok option (not my favorite), but you would need to improve one of their anti-archer units (like giving the last armor to Skirmishers) and give them a competitive late game gold army (no idea on how to achieve this one without making them too strong or just a copy of Vikings with more cavalry).

I don’t agree with this statement, you need at least the armor upgrades and squires to make Obuch deal with archers. Also they can’t raid as Janissaries or Conquistadores do, which is part of the reason they are so good.

I agree Poles have a decent tech tree, but they also have obvious deficiencies (no armor for archers and Cavalry and no Halberdiers).

Teutonic Knights have 2 pierce armor (they are different compared to other Champion-like units, but still technically incorrect), also, Kamayuks end up with 6 pierce armor in late game which is the same as the Obuch’s, while moving faster and also being great in melee combat, the difference being that Incas don’t have good eco in late game, nor gunpowder units.

4 Likes
3

there are other civs that are designed like this. For example, Aztecs have no power unit either in late Imp. Is this a problem? Poles still have Arbalest with all relevant upgrades, they can do Cavalier, and late game they can do mass Winged Hussar. They are one of those civs that wins by numbers, you stay on 110-115 vills and have extra 15 army to work with. Their late game composition is flexible depending on what you see from opponent but ALL their units are cheap and this allows for a low-eco approach (Obuch: 55f 20g, Cavalier: 60f 30g, Arbalest 25w 45g, Winged Hussar 80f etc.)

Worth noting that also their Folwarks help a ton in enabling Hussar spam with a low(er) eco and once you research Lechitic Legacy, Winged Hussar trade rly well vs most melee unit, gold-based or not.

the flaw in this argument is that you are assuming opponent has some form of melee unit (Knights) and something to kite your Obuch (Crossbows), while you are stuck on Obuch. The notion that an army composition of 2 units beats a 1-unit spam is good game design and intended. Obuch doesn’t work like that, but it should. You basically never see 1-unit army compositions, unless it’s some extremely early age up into 1-unit cheese all-in (e.g. FC Turks into Janissaries Castle Drop).

If you have Crossbows vs Obuch, you should mix your own units (Scout line +1 dmg vs archers for example) to counter.

Poles are rly strong on open maps too. We saw for example Mr.Yo do a semi-FC into UT cheap Knights flood. They have strong eco bonuses AND are unpredictable. For example, they can open Scouts, Archers or Tower rush. On Arabia Poles are like top 10 still.

Poles are actually not bad late game, you need to play them like Byzantines, 115 vills and spam cheap units. Generally you open probably Obuch + Skirm and then adapt based on what you see. Opening mass cheap Knights is also a possibility.

kiting 20 Obuch for 3+ min is not a great value… unless you can kite back to Castle or TC, generally not something I’d recommend.

Their archers are the only weakness I see in their tech tree. They can do their own Arbalest vs mass Arbalest (Poles will generally mine more gold due to Stone bonus so this is a fine strat long-term too), they have a rly aggressive Hussar (9+4 attack is nearly Cavalier-tier of attack), and their Knights cost like a Champion…

they also cost like 2x the resources of an Obuch.

2 Likes
4

Aztecs have the benefit of strong early game bonuses to gain a lead and compensate for a weaker late game as well as eagle power spikes in Castle and Imperial Age. That’s not necessarily the case of Poles, they seem to have an slightly above average early game and a really strong late game economy.

Not arguing about their late game flexibility in normal games, they have good options, I was talking about situations where you have trade, or a lot of gold access for both players, in which case if the Obuch is nerfed they would be in a clear disadvantage, as well as no convincing options vs heavy cavalry in late game.

Again, not sure this is true for heavy Cavalry and Halberdiers, it isn’t like you can be wasteful with Winged Hussars vs anything melee.

Obuchs are not that good on their own, you still need siege support to destroy buildings and have map presence (otherwise you have to constantly run away from ranged units) and knights can choose to fight or go to raid elsewhere (not true in Arena, and again, is the main problem with Poles imo). You still need ranged support vs archers as well.

It’s not a common opening with Poles, unless you have already castle dropped the enemy, it’s more common to see straight knights in Castle Age or tower rush (on Arena the composition you mention seems more plausible). Also, by mixing skirms you are basically acknowledging that you still need a second unit to make your army work, so that’s a signal they still have weaknesses.

May I see the game? I don’t recall it. I assume he went for greedy FC with stone mining and fully walled base…?

Not sure where you get this idea, the games and data I’ve seen suggest they are about average in open maps (about 50% winrate across all ELOs, unusual pick in tournaments for open maps, somewhat average early game…). I agree they are hard to predict though.

Again, in open maps you don’t need to engage the Obuchs unless you are already on the backfoot and surrounded in your base.

This fight could go either way, given the lack of armor balances the extra gold from stone mining, that, as I’ve said, gives them a bit too much utility imo. Their Hussars and Cavaliers are still convincing counters, but as soon as you combine Halberdiers to the Archer mix it’s harder to justify their use in isolation without ranged units, and their Skirmishers are also more frail.

The comment wasn’t intended to say that TK’s are good vs archers (they suck), just that your comment wasn’t true, as the comment states right after.

2 Likes
5

Agree. It really makes no sense it is stronger than woad raider and berserk which are more expensive.

1 Like
6

I think it is becauase woad raider and berserk are too weak. We just buff them

5 Likes
7

Better to buff all the Infantry UU to make them at the same level as the Obuch

6 Likes
8

Mate tell me one thing except +2/+2 elite skirm with ballistics that crossbows don’t have an easy time countering?

3 Likes
9

:roll_eyes::roll_eyes::roll_eyes: No. Not even close.

Poles need to sacrifice gold income Vils to put those Vils on stone. Meaning their overall gold income rate is actually lower than other civs factoring the same number of vils unless every single civ is gathering stone.

Poles total gather rate is higher, but it means they have to gather stone, how many times is gathering stone actually the optimal choice? When all power units need gold, it means you’re sacrificing on military production

ie arena is one of the few places that gold from stone is as potentially strong as you make it out

Take almost any UU melee infantry and see how little it is used.

“Guys look at these unused units, obuch should be like them”

Taxmen is an absolutely terribad comparison because it’s ranged infantry. I can do the same comparison in the opposite direction

“Hur dur huskarl, serjeant and ghulam have high PA, other UU infantry should have high PA”

If anything maybe obuchs can get another +1sec on TT and like +5 gold. But more than likely Devs will knee jerk, obuchs become unused and we circle back around to only Turks fast imperial smashing everyone instead

2 Likes
10

These guys should seriously get 2PA, at least their elite version. considering how bad Celt mobility is. And how cost ineffective woads are Vs most units.

These still smash lower armoured units more effectively and are better against stuff like siege with +0.15 speed and their full upgrade potential is better. And they’re slightly better at damaging buildings (+1 dmg)

I would buff a lot more infantry UU before touching E berserks

4 Likes
11

I’d rather just increase Obuch’s gold cost to 30g.

1 Like
12

Only infantry UU that needs a buff is the Serjeant, other have tasks that are good at, and is fine.
Obuch currently overperform for how are priced.

3 Likes
13

Honest question. Is it that the Sergent needs a buff or that Hauberk is just too good to pass up?

2 Likes
14

Both at the same time, Sicilian Cavaliers are just too good to the point serjeant is pointless.
Nerf Sicilian Cavalier and buff Serjeant. that’s it.

10 Likes
15

Obuch are far too cheap compared to all the power and utility they have. Plus they only need 4265 res aprox to fully upgrade (lol) and cost 55f, 20g to train.
But their stats are fine. I’d only nerf their cost. I’d make them cost +5f, +5g and make the elite upgrade a lot more expensive.

I also agree that all the other infantry UUs should get another direct buff or be cheaper to fully upgrade. For example, berserks cost 6740 res aprox to fully upgrade. Huskarls, 5240 res. Jaguar warriors, 5140 res. Kamayuks, 5040 res. Throwing axemen and shotel warriors, 4790 res. Bruh, almost looks like a joke if we take into account that obuch are a lot more useful in most cases, and training them is even cheaper than champions. It’s not fair at all if we factor in the fast food income from folwarks, the extra gold from stone, and the gold discount from szlachta privs. Those 3 add up more eco solvency as the match lasts longer.

In that same vein, most infantry UUs need some tweaks in the cost deparment. One case: serjeants are like mini TKs that resist arrows and imo their stats and training cost are ok. But the elite upgrade should get cheaper food-wise. Like 900~950f, instead of 1100.

4 Likes
16

Yes, they are a kinda strong unit and cheap for that, especially on the gold part.

But they need the 2 pierce armor. why? Because Poles miss both the last armor upgrades for archers and cavalry. They need the obuch having that armor.

Also you forget about the fact that obuch have kinda low damage output in comparison.

So no, I wouldn’t change obuch. If there are problematic thing about the poles it’s their eco bonusses and szlachta privileges.

3 Likes
17

They have in Castle the same or even more armour and HP than many of the other civs Elite infantry UU, and they are way too cheap. And it helps that they have a good enough food bonus and basically free gold if you decide to go for stone to build castle.

Nerf both armours in castle and pierce in imp should be fine, or raise the price +10/5 at least.

1 Like
18

Just decrease their PA and that’s it, They still will be a fast trained infantry UU with high HP and good perfomance in melee, but Hussar+arbalest becomes the way to go vs Obuch.

19

Would agree the cost of Obuchs should increase by +5f/+5g.
Also agree that most other Infantry Unique units should get a buff.
I’d suggest:
Elite Woad Raider +1PA (Strengthen their role as a raiding unit)
Elite Samurai +1MA/+1PA (What is the role of the Samurai? I would just make him a straight up more tanky Champion replacement with the extra niche of anti UU. The Samurai isn’t really suited to go up against lots of UUs despite its bonus, so its too niche too justify the high cost. Just let them be a better Champion with a kind of same role, like Mangudai replaces the need so CA, Samurai replaces Champion for Japanese)
Elite Jaguar Warrior +1MA +3 Attack vs. Infantry (Make them more efficient in their anti Infantry role)
Royal Heirs cost -100Gold (Shotels are mostly fine but I think Royal Heirs is a tad too expensive for what it gives you)
Berserkergang cost - 200Food / -150 Gold (Same as with Shotels. The unit is fine, but requires lots of expensive Upgrades. Berserkergang has quite an unreasonably high cost in my opinion)
Sergeant Elite Upgrade cost - 200Food /- 100 Gold (Not quite sure where to go with this unit, but I think reducing its upgrade cost is a good way to start.)
Karambit (Not sure where to go with this unit. I don’t like it at all and the only reason I see in building this is to kill a ram in an emergency. Trash-THS are the better swarm infantry imho.)

3 Likes
20

I’ve seen Karambits be used a bit more now (closed maps/BF though) to relatively okay success. The problem is the training time for them, I think. This plus castles makes the Karambit swarm very time-consuming, something you don’t really get. I wonder if that’s because it might be OP if they can be massed faster, but other than that they’re not that bad.